MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793088371 · doi:10.1108/jfc-11-2014-0048

A model for preventing corruption

2018· article· en· W2793088371 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Crime · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changeCorporate governanceOriginalityBusinessTyingValue (mathematics)Public relationsPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceFinanceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the extent of corruption globally, explains its social and economic consequences and introduces a model, composed of corporate governance mechanisms, internal controls and red flag analyses, which organizations can apply to prevent corruption. Design/methodology/approach This study uses criminology theories to analyze corruption and its prevention. Findings The global cost of bribery alone is estimated at US$1tn annually, not including costs resulting from non-completion and deficient completion of development projects (World Bank Institute, 2004). This paper shows that an effective prevention model should include a positive work environment and ethical governance; the implementation of a compliance risk management program with fraud risk assessments; an accessible psychological assistance program for employees; regular employee anti-fraud training; the implementation of targeted internal controls such as proper segregation of organizational duties; the adoption of fair compensation levels and realistic individual performance goals; a user-friendly and anonymous reporting mechanism; and independent and regular analyses of abnormal patterns (red flags). Research limitations/implications This paper extends previous research by tying together disparate factors into a cohesive model for the prevention of corruption. Practical implications The prevention model developed in this paper assists in deterring corruption, improving internal controls, improving the likelihood of detection and reducing opportunities to perpetrate corruption. By reducing the risk of corruption, this model also helps organizations and governments reduce project costs (public spending) and improve project quality, thus promoting economic competitiveness. Originality/value A comprehensive prevention model is developed to help curtail corruption and its devastating effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it